Comments for A Chaotic Wavehttps://chaoticwave.com
Not Responsible For Sanity LossSun, 15 Oct 2017 05:23:49 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/Comment on Echoes From The Future | An Argument Against Predictive Programming by Thomas Arezzo (@ThomasArezzo)https://chaoticwave.com/2017/09/25/echoes-from-the-future-an-argument-against-predictive-programming/comment-page-1/#comment-68
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 05:23:49 +0000http://chaoticwave.com/?p=1378#comment-68Nice piece. As you know I agree, but the way you have put it here is succinct enough to be entertaining and thorough enough to provoke thought.

]]>Comment on The Final Frontier by Mike10131994https://chaoticwave.com/2016/03/29/the-final-frontier/comment-page-1/#comment-53
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 04:37:32 +0000http://chaoticwaver.wordpress.com/?p=67#comment-53Also, props to the response. I didn’t expect it when I saw the “Moderation Pending” message, so respect

]]>Comment on The Final Frontier by Mike10131994https://chaoticwave.com/2016/03/29/the-final-frontier/comment-page-1/#comment-52
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 04:34:24 +0000http://chaoticwaver.wordpress.com/?p=67#comment-52That is fair, but you can’t claim speculation and then state things like you 100% are certain you can defy physics as we know it, regarding the antigravity example. Not to mention you said that maybe everyone else is just “stupid”. Sounds like heavy suggestions to be backed by pure speculation, to the point where people probably refer to you as ACTUAL EVIDENCE, which is exactly how these conspiracy theories propagate.

]]>Comment on The Final Frontier by ChaoticWavehttps://chaoticwave.com/2016/03/29/the-final-frontier/comment-page-1/#comment-51
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 03:39:43 +0000http://chaoticwaver.wordpress.com/?p=67#comment-51Thanks for your comment. I don’t claim to know anything, it is speculation and says so. Nor do I claim to be a good writer.

I have a healthy respect for science. However, there are clearly technologies and methodologies being withheld from the public. Even mentioning these possibilities (like anti-grav) as an area of study in universities is a showstopper.

]]>Comment on The Final Frontier by Mike10131994https://chaoticwave.com/2016/03/29/the-final-frontier/comment-page-1/#comment-50
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 02:13:24 +0000http://chaoticwaver.wordpress.com/?p=67#comment-50Hi. I recently decided to kill some time messing with some people who believe ridiculous conspiracy theories. Left a comment on you friend Crrow777’s video about how satellites “don’t exist as we know them”(???). That’s a load of garbage too, and I welcome you to ask any questions you might have if you want some clairification as to why. Your friend Vanessa Cunningham commented in the video and refered me to this post writtin by her…intelligent…friend (i.e. you), in hopes that it would change my view on “‘science’” (you two both really love sticking that word between quotes). But before any discussion regarding that video, I’m going to go paragraph for paragraph here and explain what you’re missing that makes your statements here so absurd in the realm of reality.
Now, to do this effectively, we have to establish a few ground rules. See, a VERY common technique in arguments which defend speculative points of view is to simply claim that because I, the opponent, cannot prove you wrong in terms that you understand and agree with, that your point remains valid or worth consideration. This is a fallacy. Science does not care if you understand it, that’s the beauty of science. We shall take the correct approach: Should there be such a junction of disagreement, he who makes the positive claim must back up said claim with evidence. For example, if I tell you that NASA launched a probe to Pluto and took pictures of it and you counter with something along the lines of “Yes but you’re taking the word of the scientists whose job it is to push these ideas”, it is now down to you to bring me some empirical evidence that these scientists would have done such a thing. I trust that you’ve thought about these ideas enough to have no problem dismissing any questions I may have with well-backed examples and evidence. Now, let’s begin…
P1: The statement “all we know of space is what we’ve been told” is a pretty empty one. All we know about ANYTHING that isn’t instinctual or straightforward is known because we have to take the words of people who are already informed on the subject. You would NEVER tell a doctor “Hey, I know you think I have cancer but all I’ve ever heard about this ‘cancer’ is from you ‘professionals’ and the mainstream media, so it’s probably a bunch of bull anyway. I’m not going to wast thousands on medicine for this fake disease!” The same goes for trusting economists, engineers, etc. So why pick on astronomers? You take the words of professionals every day, and it’s lead to a society in which we have amazing predictive abilities, such as when tides will occur, when venus will cross the sun next, etc etc etc. You also make an invalid point about parts of the electromagnetic spectrum being unavailable to citizens, and then follow it up with, and I quote, “I don’t know, that is a guess.” Basically, anywhere you come across that prase, replace it with “Everything I just said is based on nothing and its about as likely of being true as having picked it out of a hat of all physical possibilities.”
P2: I would say that the recent uptick in space news is mostly due to two things: coinsidence and politics. For example, Cassini was launched in the 90’s and the mission just so happen to have been extended to late 2017, so we got stories like the recent one about Enceladus harboring another huge requirement of life–a source of food/energy. But we’re also in a time where the current presidential administration is tightening the belt on NASA. I would argue that NASA is trying to pump out progress and excitement in order show that they are a valuable asset to our society that should be aptly funded and trusted. But, that is only my opinion, I do agree that there is indeed a recent uptick in space news, we just have a disagreement about why we think that might be, which I have no problem with whatsoever.
P3: You are correct, NASA is indeed outsourcing its space travel. I’m not sure how relevant that is to your point, though. They are doing it out of necessity. Imagine this scenario which I believe describes the situation pretty well: You live in a neighborhood which requires you drive only a Lamborghini (people gotta be places fast, man). Your only options to get from point A to point B are walk (we can’t flap our arms and fly to space so no), or drive a Lambo. Now, imagine every time you drive to and from your destination, your car explodes and you have to buy an entirely new one the next time you want to go out. What NASA is doing is, instead of investing $5M in a new car every time they want to go to the supermarket, they’re paying their friend DudeGuy $100 bucks for a lift. That will get them 5,000 trips to the supermarket for the cost of making the trip themselves once. Privatization also has the added benefit of the private sector competing to make the process as efficient and financially conservative as possible. NASA is reallocating their funds because it has become a waste of resources to keep building new rockets when private companies can do the leg work for them, and they can use these resources on better things.
P4: “We can’t know.” We actually can know, in fact we WOULD know, probably down to the dollar. That’s how the stock market works right now. Look at a company’s market cap, or open crunchbase and check their investment rounds. Especially when there is money involved, the books will be well-kept. The on-a-whim assumption that we can’t know such a thing speaks fairly clearly to the fact that you’re quick to assume an answer when there’s much more consideration to be done.
P5: This is pretty much the best example of how little you care to actually research and back up your claims before spreading them. Technologies for which we have NASA and space to thank for are as follows and are not limited to: GPS, LEDs (so basically EVERYTHING with a screen), infrared ear thermometers, artificial limbs, firefighter gear, and even that glorious pen you so blatantly misrepresented, and MUCH more (just look it up). So yeah, space has done A TOOOOONNNNNNN for you and everyone. Regarding the pen, do you know that both NASA AND the Soviets used pencils at first? And why, you ask, did NASA put so much effort and money into developing this pen? Because in microgravity, particulates do not just fall to the floor forever. They float until they’re sucked into some important device or inhaled by an unwitting scientist. So, as you can imagine, the graphite dust and eraser bits that come off when using pencils would then cause many, many issues. Imagine trying to breathe if all of the dirt, dust and other particles in your room suddenly started freely floating around. Also, if you actually looked into it, you would know that each pencil cost anywhere between $128.89 and $4,382.50 PER PENCIL! After only 1730 higher-end pencils, you would eclipse the inflation-adjusted figure you provided of $7,580,929.48.
P6: God I don’t even know what to say here… A breakaway civilization? Really? It’s so wild that I feel nothing I could say about this would convince you otherwise, so I just ask for some empirical, repeatable evidence that this is the case. No, Roswell is not empirical or repeatable. It is a conspiracy theory (or rather a hypothesis, as the word theory is more akin to established fact in science lingo (holla to all the evolution-is-just-a-theory morons!)).
P7: Or maybe the universe is an absolutely fascinating place we find ourselves in, and we find ourselves easily captivated by its vastness and its mysteries? I don’t mean to be rude, but you’re a flat out idiot. Sorry, but I find what I just said WAY less offensive than writing off ALL other people who disagree with your very disagreeable ideas as “stupid” people. How arrogant. Also fyi, NLP is highly discredited.
P8, P9: So what’s your point? The government is regulating the budding space industry and that somehow is surprising? That is the government’s job. To what degree it should be regulating is a valid debate, that it is at all is not.
P10: Yes, space is being commercialized. I think you’re mislead as to why that is the case. Everything that has potential commercial value is bound to be commercialized, and space has GREAT potential commercial value. What you’re seeing happen with the regulation and commercialization is what you would expect to happen for a technology thats on the cusp of reality.
P11: It’s empty, but is full of rocks? It’s lifeless, yet there might be microbes? Huh?
P12: God I couldn’t wait to get to this part, because it shows beautifully how you know nothing about a topic, yet you make absolute assertions that would only be made by someone who at least partially understands said topic. “If I had trillions of dollars, I am 100% certain I could produce an anti-gravity chamber.” Oh, really? Maybe you should read a little bit into general relativity first. I’m no scientist, but I am an enthusiest who is quite informed on the subject, and I can tell you that you are 100% wrong by all current science. Gravity is the result of the warping of the 4-dimensional manifold of spacetime by mass and energy. The classic example of a bowling ball on a taut sheet of cloth isn’t exactly right, but it gives you a good intuitin on the basics of what’s happening here. The laws which describe GR work out such that there must be negative mass for there to be any sort of repulsive gravity, and nothing we’ve ever seen would even hint that such a thing exists. And even if it DID produce negative mass somehow, you would need the equivalent of EARTH in order to cancel out the gravity we feel. You could throw a quintillion dollars at that project, I know for a fact you couldn’t get it done. Maybe at some point it will be possible, but for now you’re wrong. But that’s the great thing about science, it doesn’t claim to know what it actually doesn’t. It will drop any preconceived models that fail to adequately explain observable phenonima, and work to find a model that does, incrementally building a popsicle stick house of facts the size of Mt Everist over thousands of years. Just because you can’t see every single individual popsicle stick that goes into supporting the top of the house, you know they’re there by the sheer fact that it’s standing up. I urge you to look into GR and SR, they are fascinating subjects that I’ve only scratched the surface of. The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose is a great place to start.
P13: You’re right, you don’t know what “space” is, and neither do I. Why? Because it is an arbitrary line dividing our atmosphere from everything else. It’s just like looking at a gradient of 2 colors and me telling you to point out where one color officially turns into the other. You cannot, but you would probably say the center of the gradient because that is most practical. That is what “space” is. A line we’ve drawn as arbitrary as the ones around our countries. That doesn’t mean there is somehow an underhanded operation going on here to trick us, it’s just details. I also appreciate the mentioning of Occam’s Razor, because, on top of the fact that you did not correctly define Occam’s Razor, it is a perfect example of why this sort of brain-diarrhea you’ve done here is as useless as a fairytale. Occam’s Razor does NOT tell you to consider all possibilities. On the contrary, it says that when confronted with multiple possible explainations for something, the one which makes the least amount of assumptions is usually correct. The very reason razors are used is to save the time we would otherwise waste considering ridiculous things such as what you’ve laid out here. Do you realize how intricate a process deceiving the entire world for THOUSANDS OF YEARS is? Occam’s Razor would have an orgasm shaving off that assumption-gorged suggestion.
I truly sincerely offer you to respond with any counter points you may have. I would be happy to straighten them out to the best of my abilities, because it disheartens me to see that despite the immense progress we’re making scientifically, there are still people in the who think that the earth is flat, or that aliens have infultrated our civilizations, or whatever. And those people treat those ideas as if they’re opinions which they have the right to have, and that that somehow defies scientific fact. No.
Let me finish off by describing how science works, with an example to illustrate my point in how science is its own best critic, and that that is why we know we can trust it. I touched on it a little before. In the beginning, we were shrouded by ignorance. Over time, we developed the raw tools such as geometry–or mathematics in general–, and made observations that we then used to create models which tried to predict reality. These tools are then perpetually put to the test and are used to discover new things which we can base on previously established discoveries. For Example, Newton invented calculus, and then used it in his creation of Newton’s Laws of Motion. These laws were impecible, making INSANELY accurate predictions. It was a truly genius realization, that the same forces which govern the motion of the planets also governs the gravity we observe on earth. And it was this realization that propelled him to scientific superstardom, among his many other monsterous contributions. He became a legend, to the point that defying his laws would have you laughed out of the room. After some time though, observations were made that caused us to question Newton’s laws. For example, the orbit of the planet Mercury is subtly different than what one would expect using Newtonian mechanics. Enter Einstein. This scruffy-headed German patent clerk realized that there was in fact an explaination for these differences, and that Newton was close, but not quite on the mark. He then developed special relativity and eventually general relativity, and used his principles of GR (that space and time actually one, single entity called spacetime, and that it behaves as a 4D manifold) to fix the error of Mercury’s orbit observed in Newton’s theories. Better than that, he made another prediction. He predicted a warping effect on starlight that can be seen during a full solar eclipse (the only time anybody could see the stars which are in close proximity to the sun). You would be able to see stars close enough to the sun such that the mass of the sun actually warps the path of the light travelling so closely nearby it. Any do you know what? Einstein was spot on again, and propelled himself and his name into becoming an actual synonym for “impossibly ingenius”. What is the significance here? Einstein–the single most popular scientist of ALL TIME–got his fame not because he was proven right. No, it was because of who he proved wrong! If you can shatter the foundation on which science relies, that is only better for science because that means that before, it was working on a false–even every so slightly false–premise! Science survives, nay, thrives on disproving itself. Everybody wants to be the next Einstein, and the fact that his ideas, and all ideas across the fields of science, are CONSTANTLY being put to the test by the world’s greatest minds is why I am confident when I tell you that science is a non-partisan, trustworthy, invaluable aspect of humanity, that I am certain that I am not just being tricked into it following.
Forgive me for any spelling or grammar, I’m doing this rather quickly. Science is beautiful, you don’t need these crazy theories to make it exciting, you just have to kick back, grab a telescope or binoculars, and look up under a beautiful night sky.